THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

97 (Trib.) (Delhi) x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

97 (Trib.) (Delhi) x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

97 (Ker.) has held that the business profit is to be computed necessarily after setting off unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from previous years. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

section 80 if return is not filed within due date. In the instant case total loss of Rs.1,76,97,290/- was allowed to be carried forward in the assessment which consists of unabsorbed depreciation

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

97,96,846/-. 4. In the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order, an amount of Rs.26,62,83,280/- has been mentioned as refund issued on 22-2-2010. As per our workings, no such refund has been issued in the light of order dated 12-1-2011. 5. Interest u/s.234D amounting to Rs.5

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

section 80C; disallowance of business promotion expenses; disallowance of 33% of vehicle 4 ITA 606/Coch/2025 VishwanathanKrishnakumar expenses along with depreciation on the vehicle; and addition on account of short-term capital gains. We have also examined the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, while respectfully relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Further, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd [2022] 145 taxmann.com 97 (Pune – Trib.), which is authored by the one of the Hon'ble Members of this order (AM), took a view after making a reference of its earlier decisions in the case

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

97,648/-. 4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received on leasehold improvements of Rs. 17,16,427/- d) Disallowance on account of excess depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

97,648/-. 4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received on leasehold improvements of Rs. 17,16,427/- d) Disallowance on account of excess depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii

UST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed\nfor statistical purpose and the stay application is dismissed as\ninfructuous

97,26,729/- in\nrespect of interest on delayed receivables from AEs.\n8\nS.A.No. 66/Coch/2025 & ITA No. 1071/Coch/2024\n(UST Global Technology Services (I) P. Ltd.\nOn receipt of TPO's order, the draft assessment order was\npassed by the AO u/s. 144C(1) of the Act on 18/12/2023 for the\nA.Y. 2021-22 after proposing the addition on account

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

97,708/-. While doing so, the AO made the following additions based on the seized material:- 3 ITA Nos. 235-237/Coch/2023 K.K. Builders S.No. Issue on which addition made Addition 1 Unaccounted income from sale of IMFL 76,35,603 (K.K. Residency, Payyannur) 2. Unaccounted income from sale of Food 3,82,618 (K.K. Residency, Payyannur) 3. Unaccounted income

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

97,708/-. While doing so, the AO made the following additions based on the seized material:- 3 ITA Nos. 235-237/Coch/2023 K.K. Builders S.No. Issue on which addition made Addition 1 Unaccounted income from sale of IMFL 76,35,603 (K.K. Residency, Payyannur) 2. Unaccounted income from sale of Food 3,82,618 (K.K. Residency, Payyannur) 3. Unaccounted income

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

97,708/-. While doing so, the AO made the following additions based on the seized material:- 3 ITA Nos. 235-237/Coch/2023 K.K. Builders S.No. Issue on which addition made Addition 1 Unaccounted income from sale of IMFL 76,35,603 (K.K. Residency, Payyannur) 2. Unaccounted income from sale of Food 3,82,618 (K.K. Residency, Payyannur) 3. Unaccounted income

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 29.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. ITA Nos. 54& 84/Coch/2012 (AY: 2008-09) P.C. Jose v. Dy CIT / Dy. CIT v. P.C. Jose Ex-parte Order 2. The appeals were heard at length on 10.08.2023, covering all the issues, including the principal one, being the assessment